1|P age

SYNOPSIS

TITLE OF THE PROJECT: Bombay province v/s Bombay Municipal co-

rporation

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: The main objective of the study is case analysis
(BOMBAY PROVICE v/s BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: The study of the researcher is purely based on

doctrinal study with explanatory approach.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY: The scope of the study is to give detailed information
and this topic will be explained by giving the detailed study of the various aspects
on this topic.

CHAPTERIZATION:

1. Introduction: This case is about the dispute between the Bombay Province
and the Bombay Municipal Corporation, whether under the provisions
mentioned in the act are applicable or the crown is protected under the act!

2. Case Analysis

i) Facts: The corporation wished to lay a water-main in a road known as Antop

Hill Road, for the convenience of residents in the district known as Antop Hill. The
case states that "the land in the locality of Antop Hill is for the most part private
land belonging to the Government of Bombay, and the road serving the locality,
known as Antop Hill Road, is also a private road belonging to the Government and
in charge of the Public Works Department.

The meaning of the expression "private land belonging to the Government" is

obscure, but the correspondence suggests that the land forms a residential district
2|P age

in which government employees (among others) are housed, and counsel were
agreed that for the purposes of this appeal it might be assumed that it had been
acquired by the Crown from private owners after the passing of the Municipal Act.

In these circumstances the corporation's hydraulic engineer sought to obtain

permission from the Provincial Government to lay the required water-main along
the Antop Hill Road. The Government was willing to consent, but only subject to
four conditions, two of which the corporation regarded as objectionable. The two
conditions to which objection was made were:

(1.) that the corporation should, on twelve months' notice, remove the water-main
and restore the land to its original condition.

(2). that the corporation should pay in advance a rental of one rupee per annum.
Eventually the Commissioner (the second respondent to appeal), in purported
exercise of his powers under Section 265 and 222, sub-section{1}, gave notice of
his intention to carry out the proposed work.

ii) Issues: The one and only issue in this regard is, section 222, sub-section 1,
and section 265 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act- applicable to crown or not?

iii) Legal Provisions: The parties went into court for the sole purpose to test
whether the crown can be brought into the clutches of Bombay Municipal Act
under the sections of 222 and 265 of the above mentioned act.

iv) Related Case laws: There are very few cases which have come under this
general principle of the Municipality.

Attorney-General v. Hancock

Gorton Local Board v. Prison Commissioners

3|P age

v) Judgment: High court of Bombay has held that the Crown was liable under
the sections of 222 and 265 of Bombay Municipality Act {1989}.

3. Conclusion.

The courts have later accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and the lordships
have come to conclusion that, the sections mentioned the Bombay Municipality
Act are not applicable and the crown is exempted from doing so.